The Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics, proposed by Hugh Everett, is often praised for its so-called “mathematical elegance.” It claims that every quantum event spawns a new universe in which each possible outcome is realized. A particle goes through both slits in the double-slit experiment? Two universes are created. An electron spins up or down? Two more. It sounds more like science fiction than science. MWI isn’t just extravagant — it is absurd. Its popularity among physicists reflects not a pursuit of truth, but a laziness of mind craving simplicity, even if that simplicity demands an infinite number of worlds.
Contents
Simplicity or Sophistry?
Physicists love MWI for its apparent elegance: it doesn’t require a postulate about wavefunction collapse like the Copenhagen interpretation. All you need is the Schrödinger equation, which describes all possible states of a system. But this “simplicity” is deceptive. MWI assumes that every quantum event — from the motion of an electron to Schrödinger’s cat — spawns a new universe. Trillions of trillions of worlds are born every second. Where are they? What minimal displacement creates a new reality? If there’s a non-zero probability of a particle being anywhere in space, must we spawn infinite universes for each coordinate? This isn’t science — it’s sophistry disguised as mathematics.
Ockham’s Razor, often quoted by MWI supporters, says: “Do not multiply entities beyond necessity.” But what could be more extravagant than an infinite number of unobservable universes? MWI violates this principle, replacing one problem (wavefunction collapse) with another — an endless multiverse we can never test. This is not elegance — it’s philosophical sleight of hand. Instead of grappling with the nature of reality, MWI hides it in trillions of inaccessible copies.
Materialism as Flat-Earth Thinking
MWI is often defended through the lens of materialism — the belief that reality must be explained through measurable, physical processes. But this lens is not truth; it’s a choice that restricts our thinking. Like the flat-Earth idea comforted the ancients by avoiding complex questions about gravity and rotation, materialism simplifies the world to what can be counted. MWI is a product of this mental laziness. Instead of embracing a more complex reality — where consciousness or meaning might play a role — we choose a model that seems “understandable,” but demands infinite entities. This isn’t a pursuit of truth — it’s a desire for control and conceptual comfort, no matter how absurd.
The flat-Earth comparison isn’t an insult — it’s a structural analogy. Just as the flat-Earthers avoided the question “Why don’t we fall off the edge?”, MWI avoids the question “What causes wavefunction collapse?” Instead of answering, it proposes infinite universes that no one can observe. That’s not a solution — it’s an escape disguised as “mathematical beauty.” But beauty is not truth — it’s a human preference that can easily become a trap.
Consciousness: Simple and Fundamental
There is a more economical explanation: consciousness. Instead of spawning trillions of universes, we could assume that the observer’s consciousness selects one reality among many probabilities. This idea, proposed in the von Neumann–Wigner interpretation, has been largely dismissed by physicists because consciousness is “immeasurable.” But why should truth be limited to what we can measure? Consciousness is not an exotic new entity — it’s something we all know intimately through subjective experience. Each of us experiences reality as a single “point,” not as infinite copies. If consciousness determines wavefunction collapse, we don’t need trillions of worlds — just one, chosen by awareness.
This hypothesis is not only ontologically simpler but also closer to our experience. We don’t perceive infinite universes — we perceive one. Why invent trillions of worlds when consciousness already explains why reality “collapses” into one outcome? The problem is that materialism fears consciousness because it doesn’t fit the ruler-and-scale model of science. But rejecting the immeasurable is not science — it’s dogma, a new kind of church that limits our search for truth.
Data and the Interpretive Lens
Quantum data — double-slit interference, superposition, probabilities — do not prove MWI. They only show that the quantum world behaves strangely. MWI is one interpretation, just like the Copenhagen or consciousness-based interpretations. Choosing MWI is not a data-driven necessity, but a preference shaped by the materialist lens that avoids “uncomfortable” questions about consciousness. Yet the same data are just as consistent with the hypothesis that consciousness selects reality. For example, in the double-slit experiment, observation fixes the particle’s position. Why not assume that it’s the observer’s consciousness doing the selection, rather than some branching into new worlds?
MWI makes no testable predictions, since other universes are unobservable. This makes it not a scientific theory but philosophical speculation. If we can invent universes for every probability, why not invent universes with different speeds of light or different laws of physics? Oh, wait — we already did, and called it the anthropic principle. That’s not science — it’s fantasy masquerading as logic.
The Physics of Forgetting: An Experiment Against the Many-Worlds Hypothesis
MWI advocates love to claim that their model “requires nothing” — no collapse, no information loss, just a wavefunction branching into new worlds. But a new experiment by researchers from TU Wien and FU Berlin in June 2025 directly refutes this naive approach.
The researchers measured the energy cost of erasing information in a quantum system using ultracold rubidium atom clouds. The result was clear: erasing information always increases entropy and releases energy to the environment. This confirms Landauer’s principle, which ties information processing to thermodynamic cost.
But here’s the paradox: if MWI is correct, then no information is erased — it merely gets distributed among other branches. So why does nature pay a thermodynamic cost to “forget” if nothing is truly lost? Why is there a physical trace of information loss if “everything is preserved”?
This experiment puts MWI in a logically absurd position:
- If information is never erased, there should be no energy cost.
- But energy is spent → information is truly erased → the world selects one branch → collapse happens.
- And if collapse occurs, MWI falls apart.
Moreover, MWI does not explain why we find ourselves in this particular branch. Why not another? Why not all of them at once? There’s no answer. Meaning vanishes, leaving only mathematical structure without lived reality, where everything happens, but nothing matters.
The TU Wien experiment shows that “erasure of information” is not an abstract metaphor, but a real physical action with thermodynamic cost. And if there’s a cost, then there is a real choice, a real exclusion of alternatives. That’s not branching — it’s fixation, which requires energy.
MWI in this context is like a credit card: you spend money, but then claim the money didn’t disappear — it just “went into another universe.” That’s not physics. That’s accounting fantasy.
Meaning and Reality
Critiquing MWI leads us to a deeper insight: reality may be structured by meaning, not randomness. If consciousness is fundamental, as suggested by panpsychism or idealism, then it may not be a passive observer, but an active force shaping reality. Instead of an infinite cosmos of everything-possible, we have one reality guided by awareness or a field of meaning. This is not only more economical, but also more consistent with lived experience: the world appears coherent, not a soup of copies.
Materialism, like flat-Earth thinking, offers simplicity at the cost of truth. It avoids hard questions: What is consciousness? How does it interact with reality? Instead, it hides behind infinite unseeable worlds. But truth is not obliged to be simple or measurable. It may lie in consciousness itself, choosing one reality, one point, one meaning.
Conclusion
The Many-Worlds Interpretation is not a triumph of science, but its absurd byproduct. It creates infinite universes to avoid confronting the mystery of consciousness — but that’s not a solution, it’s intellectual evasion. Consciousness as a filter of reality is a simpler, more intuitive, and more economical explanation. It requires no multiverse, only what we already know through experience. The TU Wien experiment from June 20, 2025 shows: erasing information costs energy and increases entropy. That’s a full stop in the debate over MWI’s “harmless” branching and opens the door to an ontology where meaning and consciousness stand at the center of reality.
Если хочешь, я могу оформить это как PDF, HTML-страницу или публикацию в блоге — скажи только формат.